It was a pity that neither any director nor representatives from management of JAZZ.FM91, a Toronto based radio station that is supported by member donors, bothered to attend a court hearing on Friday.

If they had then they would surely have left embarrassed and presumably ashamed over their recent actions that saw a group of member donors forced to take legal action against the station to produce the email addresses of the more than 2000 members who contribute at least $240 a year to the station. In this way, the member donors are akin to shareholders of JAZZ.FM91, which is also a registered charity.

And on Friday the member donors were successful, a decision that will cost the station $50,000 given that it now must pay the group’s legal costs. (The equivalent of about one per cent of the station’s revenue.)

Working under the name Save JAZZ.FM91, the group has been in a dispute with the station over access to contact information for its list of member donors — particularly email addresses. It wanted to appeal directly to the station’s supporters in an effort to improve the governance of the station, which has suffered several recent high-profile staff departures and lost advertisers, its financial position deteriorating.

Justice Sean Dunphy of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice wasted little time in reaching a decision in the matter brought against JAZZ.FM91 by Brian Hemming, a member donor and a veteran of the world of investor relations and communications. (Hemming was one of the founders of Save JAZZ.FM91. His group was represented by McCarthy Tetrault.)

In his written decision, he castigated the station which by its own admission has been late in calling meetings

After a quick introduction — and wondering aloud why the station hadn’t agreed to the group’s request, in effect berating the station for wasting the court’s time — Justice Dunphy then adjourned: less than 30 minutes he returned with his decision: “It needn’t be so adversarial,” he told a court packed with member donors, former staffers and some sponsors, adding the station took a “narrow view of its obligations.”

And that narrow view, said Justice Dunphy, “was clearly adopted to frustrate the applicants and not — as suggested — out of concern to maintain privacy.” Justice Dunphy then “directed” the station to “provide such postal and electronic addresses (email) as it possesses when responding to the applicant or any other member’s request.” And, despite the objections of the station’s counsel, it must do so by December 20.

But Justice Dunphy was not finished. In his written decision, he castigated the station which by its own admission has been late in calling meetings “in the past relative to year-end.” (At its most recent annual meeting in August, members were presented with out-of-date financial statements.) He further noted that “an honest and open response to a dissident campaign” needn’t “waste the time and resources of the dissident and the corporation.”

Indeed, in remarks to the court he said that the station, which relies on public donations, “should be cheap.” As well, he noted that “tossing roadblocks in the way of democracy is not [a good use] of the corporation’s money.” Clearly he was not impressed with JAZZFM.91’s actions.

After the decision, Hemming said “the Board has lost the confidence of donors and listeners and lacks the credibility to make much-needed changes at the station.” He added the “recent fundraising campaign fell well short of its target and was further evidence that the station is endangered unless significant changes are made.”

As for its future plans. Save JAZZ.FM91 intends to seek support from donor members to requisition a Special Meeting of Members, which must be held by next February. “The purpose of that meeting will be to “vote out the incumbent board and then vote in a new board of directors proposed by Save JAZZ.FM91.

As for its future plans. Save JAZZ.FM91 intends to seek support from donor members to requisition a Special Meeting of Members, which must be held by next February

The court case occurred about a week after Bryan Snelson, a long-time fund raiser, and a financial adviser who provided a daily financial and market commentary to the station was told that his services were no longer required. Snelson, who has been associated with the station for 20 years and who over that period has raised more than $1 million, was given no explanation, other than the station had found a new sponsor. Snelson, was given no opportunity to match or have a right of first refusal.

Snelson’s abrupt dismissal and the decision by Justice Dunphy caps a dismal year for the station. Earlier 13 former and current staff wrote to the board pointing out “ongoing workplace harassment, sexual harassment, bullying and general mismanagement of the station.” The station hired a lawyer to assess the situation that (among other changes) saw the arrival of new interim chief executive. In turn, a number of staffers were let go, while some advertisers took their dollars elsewhere.

The station is also the subject of two lawsuits from former employees.

A call was placed to David McGown, the chair ofJAZZ.FM91 for a comment. He directed the comment to a director who by press time had only forwarded a press release from the station.

Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has released its last budget before the fall federal election

This Week's Flyers

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our community guidelines for more information.